By what authority are you able to assign God this role? Doing so makes you the ultimate arbiter.

If he created the universe, I've assigned him nothing. It naturally follows that he's in charge and can do as he pleases. If he doesn't exist, I've still assigned him nothing, because a nonentity can't do anything anyway.

This is a claim. Care to support it? So far, I've yet to see anyone support this claim logically. "I created X, therefore I have moral authority over X" appears to me to be axiomatic. On what basis are we forced to accept this axiom?

So you are saying might makes right. That is a morally horrible position in my position. As to the creator doing with his creation as he please, that would mean a father would be justified in slowly submerging his son in acid.

After all, his creation.

To be fair, he's not saying that might makes right. He's saying that creation makes right. Though that's still his moral opinion, which he is foisting on the universe and onto his god.

So you are saying might makes right. That is a morally horrible position in my position. As to the creator doing with his creation as he please, that would mean a father would be justified in slowly submerging his son in acid.

After all, his creation.

To be fair, he's not saying that might makes right. He's saying that creation makes right. Though that's still his moral opinion, which he is foisting on the universe and onto his god.

The "he's in charge" portion of his post(you even bolded it) is the phrase that is about the might.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

However, if you could cure the rabies and show up and teach the dog when it is doing wrong, then killing it is still an immoral act.Furthermore, think about the story, do you not consider that there would be children under the age of ten? Under 5? Under a month old?What did the one month olds do to warrant their deaths by drowning?

That is a good point. I never really thought of it that way before. I suppose you're right: God could have "cured" the world of evil prior to flooding it by showing up and teaching it what it was doing wrong. But I would suggest that the world wouldn't have listened.

So after this flood, there was no evil? According to you there was. So all it did was cause a lot of people to suffer and die for NO RESULT. Moreover, according to you this cosmic entity knew that it wasn't going to solve anything.

You know what I call that? A highly immoral act.

Good thing it is just all mythology. Bad thing is people like you who are too dense to understand none of this ever really happened are in far too great supply.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 10:38:48 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Jesus paid the price for all mankind so that we can live forever in heaven simply by believing it.

That's precisely the problem I have with Christianity, IDK. I've never believed it; in fact, I can't believe it. Between a god that can't deal with human bad behaviour without resorting to killing something, and his son getting sacrificed and coming back from the dead, and people being judged on what they believe rather than what they do, I'm completely baffled as to why anybody believes it.

I don't even think that the Jesus described in the Gospels was a real person, but if he was, I am 100% positive that never in My 56 years have I done anything that would merit an execution -- His or Mine. Executing the wrong person for the alleged crime is absurd. Expecting Me to be grateful for this insane episode of Cosmic Drama Queen Theatre is beyond ludicrous, and this is something up with which I will not put.

If that were true of all people, on this website, I wouldn't have as many comments as I have nor as much +1 in karma either. Don't get me wrong, many here probably agree with you--hell, I could point some of them out myself but just like me: they have methods that work for them, and I have a method that works for me. And it does work.

You really think you're doing a public service or something, don't you? Lol. How about a cookie?

See, they probably have the same opinion of you as I do but they're holding it back not to be nice but to drag the conversation out. Most of them know you're most likely a Poe or a Fundy, or a Cafeteria Christian, but they like to draw things out, and sometimes I do too but you're just all kinds of idiotic and though it would may be fun to draw it out with you I just can't because you're adding a definition, your definition, to a word that actually has no meaning to you, at all, but to make you feel good about the actions of your god, in your religion. So, to "drag" anything out with you would be pointless. To get you, by my method, to say what you're holding back seems to be better. And you are holding back, and if you stay here: I will get it out of you.

Quite a lot of arrogant and/or ignorant assumptions in that nearly nonsensical rambling. It's absolutely no different than if you were to go on some evangelical forum, and someone there were to call you idiotic based on differences in beliefs and purport to justify such incivility by claiming everyone else is thinking the same thing. It would really behoove you to think before you speak/type instead of just blurting out the first thing that pops into that mind of yours. I find it particularly sad that you apparently get a kick out of insulting other people. Were you a bully in school or something? Or maybe no one ever taught you better? Unlikely. You should know better. Very pathetic indeed.

We're all idiotic, some of us (you) more so than others (me). I have been a member of Christian forums. 99% of them banned me when they found out I was an atheist, I questioned anything they felt was True™, etc., the other 1% restricted me from basically do anything but read. And despite what you think: I was extremely cordial, why join otherwise?

Here, I can be me. Most other places I am me, as well. Some I tone myself down but only because they give me something I want therefore I do it purely out of selfish reasons, or I am paying for a service.

Example: I am a member of funtrivia.com, and though you don't have to pay to be a member, I do. And I follow their rules as much as possible because they are giving me something I want. I have been a member there (technically) for 10 years.

Another example:

I am a member of imdb.com and I behave there, even in the discussion forums (though sometimes I would very much like to be myself). I love movies. Everyone here who knows me, knows I do. Therefore they give me something I want. Been a member there for 12 years.

Another example:

allpoetry.com. I am myself there, when I am there. I have paid numerous times in the 12 years I've been a member there. Been on staff. Been banned numerous times (one for life that was reduced to 1 year), and yet they love it when I call people an "idiot", it's expected, really.

Not saying saying people here love it but I am only here to argue, and make idiots like you realize they are idiots.

Whether you, or anyone else agrees is irrelevant to me. I really don't care. But everyone here knows all this about me already. They know why I am here.

Why are you?

To show us how wrong we are and how right you are? No. You're only here as an amusement, and in that amusement you're going to say outrageous things, such as "Biblegod is moral for massacring an entire planet because its a True and righteous god. A good god." and then input your idiotic opinion as FACT, but outline it with your username.

See, the difference between you, and me, is that I'm honest, and you're not.

If you want to call that "arrogance" (that's name-calling by the way), so be it.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

Does anything happen that does not go according to God's divine plan (according to your theology)?

You're conflating plans, as that word is used in the general sense of preparedness for multiple eventualities, and desires, as that word is used in specifically wanting to bring about an event or result. For example, my home state of California plans for earthquakes. We don't want the to happen, but we know they're going to. So many of us have small emergency stashes of food, water, medical kits, etc. Likewise, you could say God planned for the fall of man even before he created man. But that doesn't mean he wanted the fall of man to occur.

This is a claim. Care to support it? So far, I've yet to see anyone support this claim logically. "I created X, therefore I have moral authority over X" appears to me to be axiomatic. On what basis are we forced to accept this axiom?

Creation as taught in the Bible means that God created the universe out of nothing. Nothing existed in its place before. He is responsible for everything in the universe in that sense. He made the laws of physics, and he made the laws of morality too, whether we like them or disagree with them or not.

So you are saying might makes right. That is a morally horrible position in my position. As to the creator doing with his creation as he please, that would mean a father would be justified in slowly submerging his son in acid.

To be fair, he's not saying that might makes right. He's saying that creation makes right. Though that's still his moral opinion, which he is foisting on the universe and onto his god.

Creation out of nothing means the creator made all the rules, both physical and spiritual/moral/etc. A father didn't make is son out of nothing. (I know, I know, God made Adam out of dust, but he made the dust out of nothing.) So obviously I would never ever go along with the acid analogy.

So after this flood, there was no evil? According to you there was. So all it did was cause a lot of people to suffer and die for NO RESULT. Moreover, according to you this cosmic entity knew that it wasn't going to solve anything.

You know what I call that? A highly immoral act.

Good thing it is just all mythology. Bad thing is people like you who are too dense to understand none of this ever really happened are in far too great supply.

Not exactly. It appears from the story that Noah and his family began sinning almost immediately after the flood again. So even though God had just hit the reset button, it didn't take long for mankind to exercise that free will again in a way that brought evil into the world once again. However, yes, I fully acknowledge that God knew what would happen in advance, as he always does. That doesn't mean the world wasn't better after the flood than it was before the flood.

I would like to remind you that there is no need to border on name calling over mere disagreements, especially since neither of us knows for sure whether it happened or not. I believe it did, you don't believe it did. That certainly doesn't make me [or you] dense. I respect your insights and your logic and your reasoning abilities. Let's not be uncivil. Please and thank you.

That's precisely the problem I have with Christianity, IDK. I've never believed it; in fact, I can't believe it. Between a god that can't deal with human bad behaviour without resorting to killing something, and his son getting sacrificed and coming back from the dead, and people being judged on what they believe rather than what they do, I'm completely baffled as to why anybody believes it.

I don't even think that the Jesus described in the Gospels was a real person, but if he was, I am 100% positive that never in My 56 years have I done anything that would merit an execution -- His or Mine. Executing the wrong person for the alleged crime is absurd. Expecting Me to be grateful for this insane episode of Cosmic Drama Queen Theatre is beyond ludicrous, and this is something up with which I will not put.

I think you could easily believe it if you wanted to. Belief is a choice, even when it's a passive choice. I believe my mom loves me, even when she yells at me. And we aren't judged solely by our beliefs. That is merely the first hurdle. Our acts will be judged too.

But wouldn't you say humankind in general has done things worthy of death? Jesus wasn't just paying for your sins and my sins, even if our sins appear relatively less heinous than those of mass murderers, for example. He was also paying for the sins of those mass murderers and every other sin every committed. So I don't think you need to construe his crucifixion so individually. Yes, it was for you, but not only for you.

Logged

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" - Acts 16:31 (NKJV)

"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." Oliver Wendell Holmes, New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921)

Whether you, or anyone else agrees is irrelevant to me. I really don't care. But everyone here knows all this about me already. They know why I am here.

Typically, it is against the terms and conditions of use of forums to engage in personal attacks such as using insults. Again, I can handle whatever names you want to call me online or in person, as I don't have an excitable personality, but if I don't tell you how rude your words are then you're probably going to be more likely to continue using them towards other people with increasing frequency and/or vulgarity.

To show us how wrong we are and how right you are? No. You're only here as an amusement, and in that amusement you're going to say outrageous things, such as "Biblegod is moral for massacring an entire planet because its a True and righteous god. A good god." and then input your idiotic opinion as FACT, but outline it with your username.

If you want to call that "arrogance" (that's name-calling by the way), so be it.

I'm not calling you an arrogant person. I'm saying you made assumptions in an arrogant manner in your previous post, and you appear to have done so again in this post by assuming I am here to show you how wrong you are and how right I am and blah blah blah.

As for me, I typically use Google+ for most of my online discussions, disagreements, and arguments. Many of them are political (I am a libertarian), and many of them are tech related (I have an S4 and an iPad Mini, so I'm neither a fanboy nor a hater of either Apple or Android). But typically after a few civilized comments back and forth voicing my displeasure, I am able to add the person with whom I was disagreeing to my circles, and they add me back, and we chalk it all up and remain in friendly contact.

Here, I think the same thing is likely and possible with you. You can make it your life's ambition to get under my skin. It doesn't matter to me. I'll still like you and tell you when I think you're wrong and why if I'm able. (By the way, if you're on Google+ and want to join each other's circles, let me know.) But I'll always try to do so respectfully and civilly. So I simply encourage you to do the same with me and everyone else on this site.

Logged

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" - Acts 16:31 (NKJV)

"A page of history is worth a volume of logic." Oliver Wendell Holmes, New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921)

This is a claim. Care to support it? So far, I've yet to see anyone support this claim logically. "I created X, therefore I have moral authority over X" appears to me to be axiomatic. On what basis are we forced to accept this axiom?

Creation as taught in the Bible means that God created the universe out of nothing. Nothing existed in its place before. He is responsible for everything in the universe in that sense. He made the laws of physics, and he made the laws of morality too, whether we like them or disagree with them or not.

Before we get into this - you are conflating two senses of the word "law", that of descriptive and prescriptive. Was this an intentional slight of hand, or just an error in speaking?

I think you could easily believe it if you wanted to. Belief is a choice, even when it's a passive choice.

Believe if I wanted to? Highly unlikely, IDK. I've tried attending an assortment of religious groups over the years, but I've never experienced a moment in which I uncritically just believed what I was being told. My brain simply doesn't work that way.

Quote

But wouldn't you say humankind in general has done things worthy of death?

The average person in the street? No. Absolutely not. A comparative handful of people, perhaps -- Serial killers, warlords and the like. I also think that any god worthy of the name would be able to come up with a more creative solution to deal with that troublesome handful more effectively.

Quote

So I don't think you need to construe his crucifixion so individually. Yes, it was for you, but not only for you.

How can I not take it personally? Allegedly I am to be condemned for not being able to believe it. And even if I don't personally warrant anything more than a kick in the shins, I'm not going to stand idly by and let someone else suffer the kick on My behalf.

Typically, it is against the terms and conditions of use of forums to engage in personal attacks such as using insults. Again, I can handle whatever names you want to call me online or in person, as I don't have an excitable personality, but if I don't tell you how rude your words are then you're probably going to be more likely to continue using them towards other people with increasing frequency and/or vulgarity.

You, and people like you, personally attack us with your idiocy of what is moral and what isn't. The vulgar statements you make using your religion, god, scripture to validate such idiocy makes me calling people like you an idiot when you spout out such shit minuscule in comparison.

So if I get in trouble for it: I DON'T CARE!

idiot.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

Typically, it is against the terms and conditions of use of forums to engage in personal attacks such as using insults. Again, I can handle whatever names you want to call me online or in person, as I don't have an excitable personality, but if I don't tell you how rude your words are then you're probably going to be more likely to continue using them towards other people with increasing frequency and/or vulgarity.

You, and people like you, personally attack us with your idiocy of what is moral and what isn't. The vulgar statements you make using your religion, god, scripture to validate such idiocy makes me calling people like you an idiot when you spout out such shit minuscule in comparison.

So if I get in trouble for it: I DON'T CARE!

idiot.

-Nam

Nam, you've been spoken to about this before. Dial it down.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

So you are saying might makes right. That is a morally horrible position in my position. As to the creator doing with his creation as he please, that would mean a father would be justified in slowly submerging his son in acid.

Creation out of nothing means the creator made all the rules, both physical and spiritual/moral/etc. A father didn't make is son out of nothing. (I know, I know, God made Adam out of dust, but he made the dust out of nothing.) So obviously I would never ever go along with the acid analogy.

Of course you wouldn't. It exposes your line of thinking for what it is: Vile.

So after this flood, there was no evil? According to you there was. So all it did was cause a lot of people to suffer and die for NO RESULT. Moreover, according to you this cosmic entity knew that it wasn't going to solve anything.

You know what I call that? A highly immoral act.

Good thing it is just all mythology. Bad thing is people like you who are too dense to understand none of this ever really happened are in far too great supply.

Not exactly. It appears from the story that Noah and his family began sinning almost immediately after the flood again. So even though God had just hit the reset button, it didn't take long for mankind to exercise that free will again in a way that brought evil into the world once again. However, yes, I fully acknowledge that God knew what would happen in advance, as he always does. That doesn't mean the world wasn't better after the flood than it was before the flood.

Goal of vast quantity of death, including of innocents: to remove sinAfter vast quantity of deaths: sin

I would like to remind you that there is no need to border on name calling over mere disagreements, especially since neither of us knows for sure whether it happened or not. I believe it did, you don't believe it did. That certainly doesn't make me [or you] dense. I respect your insights and your logic and your reasoning abilities. Let's not be uncivil. Please and thank you.

No, I do know for "sure" that it didn't happen, in the same level of surety that wizards didn't cast spells during the battle of Verdun or the Greek gods didn't participate in the Trojan war. Because it is absurd.

The claims are not equal as you attempt to portray them as.

My belief is supported by vast quantities of evidence, physics, all of history, archeology, biology, hydrodynamics, geology, and every physical science....and your denies all of these based on a tale in a bronze age book of fables that happens to be currently popular....no that really does make you dense, or delusional. One or the other.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 09:09:31 AM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Not exactly. It appears from the story that Noah and his family began sinning almost immediately after the flood again. So even though God had just hit the reset button, it didn't take long for mankind to exercise that free will again in a way that brought evil into the world once again. However, yes, I fully acknowledge that God knew what would happen in advance, as he always does. That doesn't mean the world wasn't better after the flood than it was before the flood.

Goal of vast quantity of death, including of innocents: to remove sinAfter vast quantity of deaths: sin

So, no. Your reasoning is invalid.

Oh, and before you try to play "but less sin" again. Massacring most of the worlds population is, in my not so humble opinion, far more heinous an act than pretty much anything that could have been going on the world you would have called 'sin' at the time.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Not exactly. It appears from the story that Noah and his family began sinning almost immediately after the flood again. So even though God had just hit the reset button, it didn't take long for mankind to exercise that free will again in a way that brought evil into the world once again. However, yes, I fully acknowledge that God knew what would happen in advance, as he always does. That doesn't mean the world wasn't better after the flood than it was before the flood.

Have you ever wondered how much incest would be required after the flood?

I'm talking about full on abominations being born, with like 4 arms and no eyes.Not to mention the lack of land based plants, thus no herbivores, and ending up with no biosphere on land.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

^^^You must have missed the "well I don't claim to KNOW anything and my theology is based on what the bible says, which includes none of the nonsense I'm about to offer as an answer BUT - God could have just wrapped up the land plants in magic bubble wrap to save them because the bible doesn't address this and I'm left to make up details that fit the narrative" reply already offered up by IDK.

^^^You must have missed the "well I don't claim to KNOW anything and my theology is based on what the bible says, which includes none of the nonsense I'm about to offer as an answer BUT - God could have just wrapped up the land plants in magic bubble wrap to save them because the bible doesn't address this and I'm left to make up details that fit the narrative" reply already offered up by IDK.

There's other parts scattered around this thread, and a few others contain similar gems.

Ahhh, i see now.So this guy is one of those "Magic, fuckyeah" guys?

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Because science based on the real world is messy and confusing and subject to change as new data arrives. "Magic, fuckyeah" neatly settles the issue once and for all (or at least, while one continues to believe it).

Yep, plants can magically be submerged under hundreds of feet of water for 40 days (IDK's #) to 150 days (bible #) and come out unscathed... people, not so much.

And then the sinnin' starts all over.

Oh and you forgot, the whole issue with the fact that brackish water would have salted all the soil. So even if they brought a garden with them....you are still talking mass extinction event that would have needed at least 50,000 years to have recovered from

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

It all has to be magic. Case closed. Shut up and believe. You can if you try hard enough. Just like IDK could believe Hinduism or Scientology or Rastafarianism if he tried hard enough.

Honestly, if there had been a massive global flood with the extinction of all air-breathing organisms at any time in earth's history, it would be the first thing every biology and geology student learned, starting with the first day of class. Week one would be "The Flood and how it shaped our earth". The rest of the term would be spent examining all the thousands of pieces of evidence.

We know what floods look like and what they leave behind. There would be no way to miss the evidence. It would be all over the place. Nobody would have any doubt. How come university departments don't do this? How come I never learned about any of the massive amounts of flood evidence in any class I ever took?

Why do all the facts-- DNA, fossils, glaciers, existence of civilizations that never noticed the global flood, geology, botany, palentology, biogeography-- tell an entirely different story from what it says in the bible? Why did god hide all the evidence of the global flood? It's like he wants us to believe just any old thing.

Noah made the ark enormous and really tight to keep all the flood water out. It was basically a wooden submarine. But we are not supposed to ask how the animals and humans breathed in a box sealed up tight like that, with no power or ventilation system. Full of methane gas. And really dark, unless you wanted to light a fire and create a giant exploding floating methane bomb. It would have been a giant floating coffin in a few days.

We are not supposed to ask why people didn't keep making awesome boats made like that, if the ark worked so well. You would think that everyone would have just gotten together whipped up another ark. When floods came again, the people just died. I guess folks conveniently forgot how to build arks. Or they were too busy inventing new evil sins.

And we are not supposed to ask why the magic sin-removing flood did not even work as it was supposed to, since the evil snapped right back in place like yoga pants on a T-Rex. We would be willing to believe something like that had happened, if there was some physical sign that something like that had happened.

And so do you, because you could not bring yourself to do it. You are a better person than the god you worship. You can only stomach the idea by making the people into non-humans, evil demons who do not deserve to live. Because that is what Dear Leader said. Kinda like what all dictators do when they want to massacre people.

I've done nothing of the sort. I admit I probably would not have done it that way, but I'm not God, and I'm not omniscient. But I've done nothing of the sort with respect to dehumanizing those who died. They were all people, just like you and me. Whether they deserved to live was God's call, since humankind is his creation after all.

But you have done, and continue to do so, every day when you refrain from asking god to explain exactly why he did what he did. By dismissing it with "oh, I'm sure he had his reasons" trivialises every death of every man, woman, child, toddler and baby that died in that flood. You dehumanise them whenever you just accept that it was okay for "them" to die.

For a Christian, you sure seem to display a lack of compassion. Occasionally saying "oooh, they were all real people you know" is not compassion - its lip-service.

There are so many questions relating to the flood story and no real answers. hell if people can stow away on ships, lorries and planes even now with us using all our tech to try and catch them why on earth were there no "unofficial" human passangers on the ark?